The Trump administration has been conducting an unprecedented assassination campaign in the Caribbean—and now the Pacific. CBS News reported that on Tuesday night there was an eighth strike, this time off the western coast of Colombia, that reportedly killed 2 or 3 people. That makes for a total of at least 34 people killed, most of them in international waters, and some reportedly in other nations’ territorial waters.
Though Trump is not the first president to assassinate people by drone—Barack Obama engaged in 563 drone strikes over his two terms, which killed up to 807 people—what’s notable is that he is claiming the authority to kill anyone at any time, on his word alone, violating norms and laws that stretch back to before the founding of this country.
Related: Mad king Trump seizes your money
As Tom Scocca points out at Defector, it is just straightforwardly correct to describe these strikes as murders. Even if we grant every one of Trump’s claims about why he is doing it—namely, to stop drug smugglers—drug trafficking is not a capital crime, and even if it were, that does not mean the government gets to blow you up with a drone legally, or sink an alleged drug trafficking boat and then return to massacre the survivors. There would need to be an attempt at capture, and a legal process involving evidence and due process. The president also can’t create a state of war with drug cartels on his say-so alone.
The administration, to be clear, has not presented any proof that any of the people or boats were involved in any crime whatsoever. Trump’s claims that he is stopping fentanyl imports also make no sense given that neither Venezuela nor Colombia produces significant quantities of that drug. Moreover, Trump is one of the most notorious liars in history, and you’d be a fool to trust a single word that comes out of his mouth.
Therefore, you should not be surprised that at least two accounts have come out describing the victims as completely innocent civilians. The New York Times reported that one was likely Chad Joseph, a man who, according to his family, was simply traveling from Venezuela to Trinidad and Tobago; while another, according to Colombia President Gustavo Petro, was a simple fisherman. “U.S. government officials have committed a murder and violated our sovereignty in territorial waters,” he posted on social media. Trump, with his signature combination of total inability to handle criticism and extreme petulance, cut off aid to Colombia and said he would impose new tariffs on it.
There’s also the fact that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is the least competent and qualified person to hold that position by an order of magnitude. The admiral in charge of this particular Navy command, a 37-year veteran who had been in the post less than a year into a three-year position, recently resigned. The New York Times reports that “one current and one former U.S. official … said that Admiral Holsey had raised concerns about the mission and the attacks on the alleged drug boats.” Gee, I wonder what those concerns might have been?
Perhaps one of them is the fact that deputy chief of staff and homeland security adviser Stephen Miller, someone wholly outside the military chain of command and the national-security apparatus, appears to be directing the strikes. The idea that a homeland security official can order summary executions in extraterritorial jurisdictions is a legal nightmare, though not for this Supreme Court–protected administration.
Finally, there is the fact that of the boats we have seen, all of them are small craft that could easily be stopped and boarded by U.S. Navy vessels. A couple of guys on a speedboat are not going to be able to outrun a destroyer or attack helicopter. (Instead, the military has often used multiple munitions to get the job done, suggesting that even the powerful force we have is not automatically successful.)
At this point, it seems reasonable to conclude that the administration, through Miller and his team, is selecting boats more or less at random, and intentionally killing people who could be captured, because they think it’s fun. Hannibal Lecter had better morals than this.
There’s a reason why international law forbids this kind of behavior. The law of the sea, the roots of which stretch back over a thousand years, evolved over centuries as nations fought each other repeatedly over control of sea lanes. It was gradually accepted that nations should have exclusive control over areas of the sea off their coastlines, while the “high seas” further out would be open to all. In that area, nations would have sole jurisdiction and responsibility for vessels flying their flags. That system enables lucrative trade across the whole planet, while heading off a potentially infinite source of conflict.
Though such rules have often been stretched or broken during wartime—like the German attack on the Lusitania—Trump has no such excuse. He’s just doing it because he can, and he’s breaking norms and setting precedents that would have given the most merciless conquerors of history pause.
After all, by Trump’s logic, Colombia and Venezuela would be within their rights to hit American tourist yachts with FPV drones, and just claim without evidence they were terrorists or whatever. (American tourists out vacationing in the Caribbean better keep their eyes peeled.) America might have overweening military superiority today, but that situation will not last forever, and quite soon we may rue the day we elected such a stupid, cruel madman.